Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
13 Aug 13
19:14
Joined:
Date Joined:
23 Jun 01
While the punishment doesn't fit the crime in this instance, you ride and collect the wages under the rules of racing in that country.
If you don't like the way they run racing then go ride somewhere else.
No question he is unfortunate but dems the rules and I wish the media would stop kissing his arris over it.
If you don't like the way they run racing then go ride somewhere else.
No question he is unfortunate but dems the rules and I wish the media would stop kissing his arris over it.
Show More
yep after hughes the season before , he's his own worst enemy. you could understand a 'struggling' jockey going for cash but dwyer does well out of the game.
nearly 3 million in prizemoney last 5 years , he shouldve pottered about on the sand and gone to india on holiday.
He's an Everton supporter so can't be all bad. Even though I never back him he can ride a winner when the cash is down.
greedy **** gets caught in "greedy **** wants more" shocker 
Obviously havn't seen the ride...the horse was uncontroleable!
he got hard done by.....he's a greedy **** for going there after what happened with Hughes last year
CDK seen it 20 times and still think a stronger jockey wouldve won on it. imo dwyer did nothing wrong , just rode his usual limp wristed style n the horse 'bullied him'
Uk racing has the most lenient punishment system in the world,it might be hitting home with the jockeys that elsewhere in the world they don't take kindly to cheating.
fwiw he wasn't guilty of any wrongdoing on this occasion but you have to be aware of how much more severe these foreign racing authorities are should you fall foul of their rules.
fwiw he wasn't guilty of any wrongdoing on this occasion but you have to be aware of how much more severe these foreign racing authorities are should you fall foul of their rules.
Been treated poorly ,feel sorry for him. 2 of our straighter riders get pulled up by them.
Wpnder what they'd make of Fallon.
Wpnder what they'd make of Fallon.
most people work 48 weeks of the year but when Dwyer goes to ride in India during the Winter he becomes 'a greedy ****'....some prize planks on this forum
yes agree duncan but after the hughes saga why did he go? not many/if any similarly well established jockeys would've taken the risk imo.
Supposed to be big prize money in India, Can't blame him have you seen some of the jockeys riding there. Imagine if the forum had as much power as them Indian 'punters' 
Biscar Two from a mile back
Uk racing has the most lenient punishment system in the world,it might be hitting home with the jockeys that elsewhere in the world they don't take kindly to cheating.
I think maybe the likes of Eddie Ahern, Paul Doe and Greg Fairley might give you an argument on that one!
Uk racing has the most lenient punishment system in the world,it might be hitting home with the jockeys that elsewhere in the world they don't take kindly to cheating.
I think maybe the likes of Eddie Ahern, Paul Doe and Greg Fairley might give you an argument on that one!
Ima mazed that's 3 from how many?
What about Culhane,Milkshake,Lynch and the many others who are suspended and come back before you know it.without knowing the ins and outs I wouldn't mind betting that while they were awaiting verdicts they were compensated by some jockeys fund.
In other countries they would have been jailed and banned for life.
Look at Hong Kong they had a warrant out for the arrest of John Egan and the uk just let him carry on riding,Fallon was refused a license by the same authorities.
I can't believe there is a more understanding jurisdiction than that of the one in the UK,from jockeys easing down to corruption,the punishment handed out is a fraction of what would happen elsewhere.
What about Culhane,Milkshake,Lynch and the many others who are suspended and come back before you know it.without knowing the ins and outs I wouldn't mind betting that while they were awaiting verdicts they were compensated by some jockeys fund.
In other countries they would have been jailed and banned for life.
Look at Hong Kong they had a warrant out for the arrest of John Egan and the uk just let him carry on riding,Fallon was refused a license by the same authorities.
I can't believe there is a more understanding jurisdiction than that of the one in the UK,from jockeys easing down to corruption,the punishment handed out is a fraction of what would happen elsewhere.
biscar........you seem to agree he is innocent but think the sentence is ok
surely justice is justice what ever country your riding in
"biscar........you seem to agree he is innocent but think the sentence is ok "
Obviously he shouldn't have been punished as there wasnt any wrong doing but you have to be aware of how these authorities work before you go and ride there.Hughes found that out last year and now Dwyer this year.
A petty thief from the UK wouldn't go and ply his trade in an arab country
Obviously he shouldn't have been punished as there wasnt any wrong doing but you have to be aware of how these authorities work before you go and ride there.Hughes found that out last year and now Dwyer this year.
A petty thief from the UK wouldn't go and ply his trade in an arab country
How do you think Mark Johnston would be received as a trainer on the sub-continent?
He'd be warned off they wouldn't stand for a horse being tailed off and then winning within a short space of time.
I noticed that the stewards in OZ(not sure if it standard practise everywhere down under)publish reports after racing and in them they display details of a trainers intention to race his horse differently,seemingly they must let the stewards know 30mins before a race that they intend to use different tactics.
I noticed that the stewards in OZ(not sure if it standard practise everywhere down under)publish reports after racing and in them they display details of a trainers intention to race his horse differently,seemingly they must let the stewards know 30mins before a race that they intend to use different tactics.
I said this on a previous thread about this, in the far east the punter is treated as the paymaster while the jockeys and trainers are treated as mere employees of the regulatory body, in Britain and Ireland the jockeys and trainers are treated as if they carry some sort of god like status by their respective regulatory bodies the BHA and the Turd Club, not to mention a brown nosing media that wallows in their every word, see no evil hear no evil the order of the day.
The problem is drawing the line between punter power and mob rule. The Indian authorities have backed themselves into a corner when they cravenly acceded to mob rule and declared the horse a non-runner.
MD got all he deserved - anyone watchin' that race back can see exactly what he did.....stopped it winning by foul play, end of.
As has been said above, the rules out there are very harsh.... you know the deal before you go... don't like it, don't go!
Simples!
As has been said above, the rules out there are very harsh.... you know the deal before you go... don't like it, don't go!
Simples!
That's only 3 because 3 was enough to make my point Biscar Two from a mile back and I could have added a few more names such as Gary Carter and others but there seems little point when your mind is so made up one way that you don't even concern yourself with the clear evidence, such as in the Kirsty Milczarek case for example and as far as I was aware Fergal Lynch was banned and went overseas to continue riding.
Ahern got a 10 years ban and also had his appeal knocked back and Doe and Fairley got 12 years which is basically game over for all of them so not exactly slap on the wrist and don't do it again stuff is it?
Oh and just for the record, Fallon was refused a licence by the Honk Kong authorities whilst he was banned here and being investigated by the UK authorities and would be the same as the BHA doing the same to a HK jockey whilst he was being investigated at home. Remind me again though how that Fallon thing turned out?
Ahern got a 10 years ban and also had his appeal knocked back and Doe and Fairley got 12 years which is basically game over for all of them so not exactly slap on the wrist and don't do it again stuff is it?
Oh and just for the record, Fallon was refused a licence by the Honk Kong authorities whilst he was banned here and being investigated by the UK authorities and would be the same as the BHA doing the same to a HK jockey whilst he was being investigated at home. Remind me again though how that Fallon thing turned out?
Leaving Fallon out of it ima for a second but why did the British and Irish authorities grant John Egan a riding licence when they knew he was a fugitive from justice in Hong Kong?, and if Egan was so innocent as he so fancifully likes to remind us then why did he run away or why then did he not go back to clear his name?
Well first of all I'm not John Egan's keeper (nor am I Fallon's either for that matter) so I don't personally feel the need to argue his case or explain anything on his behalf, but from what I understand the Hong Kong Jockey Club had no problem with Egan or the South African jockey Robbie Fradd riding anywhere else and even sent a letter to the Jockey Club in England at the time saying as much. Eagn was actually only allowed to ride anyway once his then HK suspension had been served and the only reason they were suspended in HK was as a precautionary measure whilst an investigation was ongoing. The letter apparently stated neither jockey had been charged with anything either.
As to why Egan didn't return to fact the music in HK, I personally have no idea but can take a good guess and I would probably have done the same in his shoes too.
I think some members on here say factually wrong and so get these things pointed out to them or are asked to give an explanation of something and as soon as someone does they are automatically and boringly predictably labelled an apologist for everyone, despite anyone actually taking the trouble to ask whether they agreed with that explanation or not, so it just gets assumed that it's the case.
As to why Egan didn't return to fact the music in HK, I personally have no idea but can take a good guess and I would probably have done the same in his shoes too.
I think some members on here say factually wrong and so get these things pointed out to them or are asked to give an explanation of something and as soon as someone does they are automatically and boringly predictably labelled an apologist for everyone, despite anyone actually taking the trouble to ask whether they agreed with that explanation or not, so it just gets assumed that it's the case.
He's still currently a fugitive on the Hong Kong fraud squads books, that he didn't go back suggests he'd an awful lot to hide?.
Couldnt agree more than original thread, only crime of it all is he keeps it going will miss nov to june.When could have been missing march to august lucky boy imo 
Or that he didn't go back suggests he would have to spend a fortune on legal fee with little chance of getting it back and that he might suspect he might not get a fair trial when it's one person's word over another as to whether an Hong Kong owner gave him the sum of £1,700 for betting advice.
If you silvergreaser as a punter on Betfair's forum already have him as good as bang to rights despite knowing little first hand of the circumstances, then he probably has cause for concern on the fair trial score.
If you silvergreaser as a punter on Betfair's forum already have him as good as bang to rights despite knowing little first hand of the circumstances, then he probably has cause for concern on the fair trial score.
We have authorities who need overwhelming evidence before they mildly suggest that a jockey is guilty of non-trying and even then it's rarely a household name that gets pulled in.When they do the punishment they get is 14 days!!Similar measly penalties for failing to win races when they ease down too soon.
In cases of corruption the jockeys are back before we know it and welcomed by all in the media and the industry itself.
Rarely do they ever face criminal charges and never do they have assets seized under proceeds of crime act.
They get away with murder in this country so why is it surprising that when they fall foul of rules abroad they think they are hard done by.
In cases of corruption the jockeys are back before we know it and welcomed by all in the media and the industry itself.
Rarely do they ever face criminal charges and never do they have assets seized under proceeds of crime act.
They get away with murder in this country so why is it surprising that when they fall foul of rules abroad they think they are hard done by.
Fair enough ima, but only pure unadulterated naivety would suggest Egan is innocent.
The fact is he was under investigation and to be granted a licence to ride in Britain and Ireland was a dereliction of duty and an insult to the betting public from the BHA and the Turd Club.
He should never have been granted any licence until he cleared his name or the more likely scenario of been found guilty of fraudulent practices.
The fact is he was under investigation and to be granted a licence to ride in Britain and Ireland was a dereliction of duty and an insult to the betting public from the BHA and the Turd Club.
He should never have been granted any licence until he cleared his name or the more likely scenario of been found guilty of fraudulent practices.
anyone that has watched a video of the race and thinks Dwyer is guilty of anything is muddled in the head as far as i'm concerned...nothing more to say
duncan i watched it and i thought he should have won , as silver greaser has highlighted, it is refreshing to see a country take such action against a jockey that has pulled a horse for his gain, martin dwter was never a punters pal here in uk , his record on favs was deplorable and as far as i am concerned good riddens , the media including racing post today making out there is lots of sympathy is pathetic , trainers such as fahey coming out saying he is innocent , how does he know , another apologist for the system, you ask the average punter out there bout dwyer and you 'll get the right answer
Do you see how that first line above makes you sound Biscar Two from a mile back? Why wouldn't any authority "need overwhelming evidence before the blah blah blah......" or would it be better if they acted on a whim because someone on here lost a fiver so decided to ring the BHA and say the jockey was a crook and needed investigating? You make it sound like only acting when there's strong evidence is a bad thing.
I would also suggest that the reason the jockeys who have been banned actually were, is partly because of the very reason that they are not household names and are scratching around for rides and trying to make a living from the game and struggling, which makes them far more likely to be tempted than say multimillionaire household name types, you know the kind I mean, like 6 times Champion Jockey and multiple classic and Gr1 winners all over the world types.
Jockeys don't get 14 days bans for corruption so if it's 14 or 21 days or whatever it's not because they have been deemed to have don't anything illegal but more through incompetence or a misjudgement and this lynch mob mentally some punters have where every time they lose or a fancied horse gets beaten it's because the jockey must be "at it" is embarrassing.
Maybe the reason they never face criminal charges is because most will take their chance in court and the average non-racing person sitting on a jury doesn't have the knowledge and experience to be able to make a judgement about whether a jockey has pulled a horse or not. There are plenty on here who don't either, so just have guilty as their default setting anyway. This maybe explains why bans are dealt with in-house and after the fiasco the Met Police made of the Fallon case and bringing in that fish out of water Aussie steward then you can maybe understand exactly why.
And only someone who has already made up his mind such as yourself silvergreaser would suggest Egan must be guilty without knowing the finer detail, nor hearing any evidence or even letting him have his day in court. Oh and before you say he's the one stopping that from happening then yes you are right, but as I've already said there are logical reasons why he might not what to go back and face the music but that doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. The HKJC don't have the power to force him to go back and if (and I'm just saying if here) I was accused of a crime abroad that I didn't do and nobody could force me back there then I know I certainly wouldn't offer myself back to them out of the goodness of my heart. Just for the record, I've never made any judgement either way here about Egan but he had far more to lose and very little to gain if he did go back and was found guilty, whether he was or not.
I've already explained why he was granted a license and with the HKJC's blessing too and the accusation against him was taking payment for information and whilst I'm not saying that's OK, presumably he was accused of giving positive information on his horse's chances and that's a totally different form of misdemeanour to stopping horses, so why would that impact on punters in this country?
I would also suggest that the reason the jockeys who have been banned actually were, is partly because of the very reason that they are not household names and are scratching around for rides and trying to make a living from the game and struggling, which makes them far more likely to be tempted than say multimillionaire household name types, you know the kind I mean, like 6 times Champion Jockey and multiple classic and Gr1 winners all over the world types.
Jockeys don't get 14 days bans for corruption so if it's 14 or 21 days or whatever it's not because they have been deemed to have don't anything illegal but more through incompetence or a misjudgement and this lynch mob mentally some punters have where every time they lose or a fancied horse gets beaten it's because the jockey must be "at it" is embarrassing.
Maybe the reason they never face criminal charges is because most will take their chance in court and the average non-racing person sitting on a jury doesn't have the knowledge and experience to be able to make a judgement about whether a jockey has pulled a horse or not. There are plenty on here who don't either, so just have guilty as their default setting anyway. This maybe explains why bans are dealt with in-house and after the fiasco the Met Police made of the Fallon case and bringing in that fish out of water Aussie steward then you can maybe understand exactly why.
And only someone who has already made up his mind such as yourself silvergreaser would suggest Egan must be guilty without knowing the finer detail, nor hearing any evidence or even letting him have his day in court. Oh and before you say he's the one stopping that from happening then yes you are right, but as I've already said there are logical reasons why he might not what to go back and face the music but that doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. The HKJC don't have the power to force him to go back and if (and I'm just saying if here) I was accused of a crime abroad that I didn't do and nobody could force me back there then I know I certainly wouldn't offer myself back to them out of the goodness of my heart. Just for the record, I've never made any judgement either way here about Egan but he had far more to lose and very little to gain if he did go back and was found guilty, whether he was or not.
I've already explained why he was granted a license and with the HKJC's blessing too and the accusation against him was taking payment for information and whilst I'm not saying that's OK, presumably he was accused of giving positive information on his horse's chances and that's a totally different form of misdemeanour to stopping horses, so why would that impact on punters in this country?
"taking payment for information" is getting paid to stop a horse. Only a long winded know all like ima_ would suggest otherwise. Do you really think that Bookie Banks gave Greatest Jockey a motor car for his opinions British racing is now as bent as its ever beem which considering prize money often does not cover a months training fees who can blame em. Everyone has to eat. No point playing it 100% straight and going out of business is there
British racing is now as bent as its ever beem which considering prize money often does not cover a months training fees who can blame em. Everyone has to eat. No point playing it 100% straight and going out of business is there
You still didn't answer my query ima, why was Egan granted a licence when he was still under investigation?.
The BHA and Turf Club should've told him where to get off until he cleared his name or whatever?.
To grant a guy a licence (suspension served or not) when he was still under investigation for severe fraudulent practices was just another example of the incestuous nature of British and Irish racing, he should not have been let anywhere near a riding licence considering the serious nature of the charges not to mention he was also a fugitive, absolute joke!!.
The BHA and Turf Club should've told him where to get off until he cleared his name or whatever?.
To grant a guy a licence (suspension served or not) when he was still under investigation for severe fraudulent practices was just another example of the incestuous nature of British and Irish racing, he should not have been let anywhere near a riding licence considering the serious nature of the charges not to mention he was also a fugitive, absolute joke!!.
Oh the irony in people like MikeEnfield calling me a long winded know all. Well better that than a short winded know nothing if you don't mind me saying.
Taking payment for information doesn't only have one meaning and I thought I had actually explained that anyway. Please feel free though to explain to me how if a jockey takes payment when telling someone a horse he is riding will win and he then wins on it, that somehow means he has stopped the horse?.....The clue was in the part saying where he er, wins on it!
I also love it how someone can wrongly pull someone else up on the specifics of something and the way they try to support that is to ask a completely different question. Yes bent jockeys can take payment for information which can be from a negative angle and include them pulling a horse but they can also take it for giving out positive information about their horse too, it really isn't that complicated to grasp. In similar circumstances when Victor Chandler gave "no-lose" betting accounts to the likes of Jimmy Fitzgerald and Gay Kellaway I'm guessing it wasn't to find out about the ones they didn't fancy from their yards.....Once again the clue was on the name no-lose.
I actually did answer you Egan license question silvergreaser, in fact I answered it twice but maybe that's part of the battle here that if your mind is so made up and set in its ways that replies don't even register with you then what can you do?
Taking payment for information doesn't only have one meaning and I thought I had actually explained that anyway. Please feel free though to explain to me how if a jockey takes payment when telling someone a horse he is riding will win and he then wins on it, that somehow means he has stopped the horse?.....The clue was in the part saying where he er, wins on it!
I also love it how someone can wrongly pull someone else up on the specifics of something and the way they try to support that is to ask a completely different question. Yes bent jockeys can take payment for information which can be from a negative angle and include them pulling a horse but they can also take it for giving out positive information about their horse too, it really isn't that complicated to grasp. In similar circumstances when Victor Chandler gave "no-lose" betting accounts to the likes of Jimmy Fitzgerald and Gay Kellaway I'm guessing it wasn't to find out about the ones they didn't fancy from their yards.....Once again the clue was on the name no-lose.
I actually did answer you Egan license question silvergreaser, in fact I answered it twice but maybe that's part of the battle here that if your mind is so made up and set in its ways that replies don't even register with you then what can you do?
Egan was only granted a temporary licence as long as he returned to Hong Kong by a certain date to face charges, and lo and behold he never returned hence why there is still an outstanding warrant for his arrest and yet he was still allowed ride in the UK and Ireland?.
Can you answer that ima or is there a plausible excuse with mitigating circumstance again?.
His licence should've been withdrawn forthwith once he became a fugitive from justice don't you think?.
Can you answer that ima or is there a plausible excuse with mitigating circumstance again?.
His licence should've been withdrawn forthwith once he became a fugitive from justice don't you think?.
Apart from the fact I started off by saying I'm not Egan's keeper, I already have answered silvergreaser and so you only further prove my point about you see what you want to once your mind is made up.
I personally would have had no problem with any authorities stopping a jockey riding elsewhere if it was felt there was a case to answer and the Jockey Club here obviously felt there wasn't one. Then again maybe they went along with that quaint old thing about innocent until proven guilty eh?
I personally would have had no problem with any authorities stopping a jockey riding elsewhere if it was felt there was a case to answer and the Jockey Club here obviously felt there wasn't one. Then again maybe they went along with that quaint old thing about innocent until proven guilty eh?
Then again maybe they went along with that quaint old thing about innocent until proven guilty eh?
If a sports participant fails to show or is not at his/her place of resident for a pre-determined drug test then they're automatically deemed guilty and given a hefty ban.
In the case of Egan when he failed to return to Hong Kong to answer the charges then the BHA and Turf Club should've automatically deemed him guilty and withdraw his riding licence.
If a sports participant fails to show or is not at his/her place of resident for a pre-determined drug test then they're automatically deemed guilty and given a hefty ban.
In the case of Egan when he failed to return to Hong Kong to answer the charges then the BHA and Turf Club should've automatically deemed him guilty and withdraw his riding licence.
Saturday, July 27, 2002 Stop Egan riding in Britain, ICAC urges
Bail-jumping jockey due to compete at Ascot meeting should be barred, UK Jockey Club told
FELIX CHAN
The ICAC has urged the British Jockey Club to stop bail-jumping jockey John Egan from continuing riding in the UK.
But the British Jockey Club says it has no plans to do so.
The head of the ICAC's operations department, Tony Kwok Man-wai, has written to the British Jockey Club after discovering that Egan will be riding in tomorrow's Hong Kong Day, a racing event sponsored by the Hong Kong Jockey Club.
The event, to be held at Ascot, features the richest five-furlong handicap in Europe - the Hong Kong Jockey Club Stakes.
Egan, 34, has been riding in Britain since April, two months after he was arrested in Hong Kong for allegedly taking a bribe - reputed to be $20,000 - in return for racing tips.
He failed to answer bail on June 30 and Independent Commission Against Corruption investigators then obtained a warrant for his arrest.
Egan was then summoned to appear before a British Jockey Club Licensing Committee hearing in London to decide if he should be stripped of his right to ride in Britain.
But officials said it had been decided not to suspend Egan's licence for the time being because they did not have a good cause for such action and "to do so could be an infringement of an individual's rights".
But Mr Kwok said some action should be taken against Egan.
"We officially informed you that the Department of Justice has advised there is sufficient evidence to charge Egan with an offence of corruption in connection with his duties as a jockey in Hong Kong.
"Under such circumstances, it seems to us there are clear doubts of the integrity of this jockey. We are most surprise to learn that he is allowed to continuing riding in the UK.
"It does not enhance the reputation of racing in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world," the letter read.
Mr Kwok added in the letter that Egan would have a fair trial should he return to the territory.
The ICAC said last night possible extradition proceedings were still being considered in the case of Egan.
The British Jockey Club confirmed it had received Mr Kwok's letter and was in the process of sending a reply explaining its position on the matter. It has also informed its Hong Kong counterpart of its position.
"There are currently no plans for the Jockey Club to review its position, although we continue to monitor the situation and can react should there be significant developments," a spokesman for the racing body said last night.
But he said a jockey riding in the UK while facing a charge overseas in connection with racing was a cause for great concern.
Bail-jumping jockey due to compete at Ascot meeting should be barred, UK Jockey Club told
FELIX CHAN
The ICAC has urged the British Jockey Club to stop bail-jumping jockey John Egan from continuing riding in the UK.
But the British Jockey Club says it has no plans to do so.
The head of the ICAC's operations department, Tony Kwok Man-wai, has written to the British Jockey Club after discovering that Egan will be riding in tomorrow's Hong Kong Day, a racing event sponsored by the Hong Kong Jockey Club.
The event, to be held at Ascot, features the richest five-furlong handicap in Europe - the Hong Kong Jockey Club Stakes.
Egan, 34, has been riding in Britain since April, two months after he was arrested in Hong Kong for allegedly taking a bribe - reputed to be $20,000 - in return for racing tips.
He failed to answer bail on June 30 and Independent Commission Against Corruption investigators then obtained a warrant for his arrest.
Egan was then summoned to appear before a British Jockey Club Licensing Committee hearing in London to decide if he should be stripped of his right to ride in Britain.
But officials said it had been decided not to suspend Egan's licence for the time being because they did not have a good cause for such action and "to do so could be an infringement of an individual's rights".
But Mr Kwok said some action should be taken against Egan.
"We officially informed you that the Department of Justice has advised there is sufficient evidence to charge Egan with an offence of corruption in connection with his duties as a jockey in Hong Kong.
"Under such circumstances, it seems to us there are clear doubts of the integrity of this jockey. We are most surprise to learn that he is allowed to continuing riding in the UK.
"It does not enhance the reputation of racing in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world," the letter read.
Mr Kwok added in the letter that Egan would have a fair trial should he return to the territory.
The ICAC said last night possible extradition proceedings were still being considered in the case of Egan.
The British Jockey Club confirmed it had received Mr Kwok's letter and was in the process of sending a reply explaining its position on the matter. It has also informed its Hong Kong counterpart of its position.
"There are currently no plans for the Jockey Club to review its position, although we continue to monitor the situation and can react should there be significant developments," a spokesman for the racing body said last night.
But he said a jockey riding in the UK while facing a charge overseas in connection with racing was a cause for great concern.
John Egan is not the most pleasant individual just ask Dessie Hughes but he was dead right not to go back to Hong Kong as he has no chance of having a fair trial.
The wording of the charge is toxic and shows a bias.
Martin Dwyer did nothing wrong in India and the increasing of his ban is pernicious,the BHA must get rid of supporting lunatic bans,this should have been done after the Richard Hughes case but is vital now.
The wording of the charge is toxic and shows a bias.
Martin Dwyer did nothing wrong in India and the increasing of his ban is pernicious,the BHA must get rid of supporting lunatic bans,this should have been done after the Richard Hughes case but is vital now.
Wildman the South African jockey Frapp went back to Hong Kong to face the criminal investigation and got a fair trial and was cleared of the charges and allowed ride in Hong Kong again, that Egan refused suggests he wasn't as confident of been cleared?.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539